The police uniform is a tradition as old as the field of law enforcement itself In 1829 the first modem police force, the London Metropolitan Police, developed the first standard police apparel. These first police officers, the famous "Bobbies" of London, were issued a dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.. The color blue was chosen to distinguish the police from the British military who wore red and white uniforms at the time. The first official police force in the United States was established in the city of New York in 1845. Based on the London police, the New York City Police Department adopted the dark blue uniform in 1853, Other cities, such as Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit quickly followed suit by establishing police departments based on the London model, including the adoption of the dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.

To this day, the majority of police uniforms in. the United States continue to have a paramilitary appearance and are generally of a dark color

The police uniform is a tradition as old as the field of law enforcement itself In 1829 the first modem police force, the London Metropolitan Police, developed the first standard police apparel. These first police officers, the famous "Bobbies" of London, were issued a dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.. The color blue was chosen to distinguish the police from the British military who wore red and white uniforms at the time. The first official police force in the United States was established in the city of New York in 1845. Based on the London police, the New York City Police Department adopted the dark blue uniform in 1853, Other cities, such as Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit quickly followed suit by establishing police departments based on the London model, including the adoption of the dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.

To this day, the majority of police uniforms in. the United States continue to have a paramilitary appearance and are generally of a dark color

The history of modern law enforcement began 166 years ago with the formation of the London Metropolitan Police District in 1829. By creating a new police force, the British Parliament hoped to address the soaring crime rate in and around the nation's capital, attributed at the time to rapid urban growth, unchecked immigration, poverty, alcoholism, radical political groups, poor infrastructure, unsupervised juveniles, and lenient judges. The principles adopted by Sir Robert Peel, the first chief of the London Metropolitan Police, for his new "bobbies" have served as the traditional model for all British and American police forces ever since. These principles include the use of crime rates to determine the effectiveness of the police; the importance of a centrally located, publicly accessible police headquarters; and the value of proper recruitment, selection, and training.

However, perhaps the most enduring and influential innovation introduced was the establishment of regular patrol areas, known as "beats." Before 1829, the police--whether military or civilian--only responded after a crime had been reported. Patrols occurred on a sporadic basis, and any crime deterrence or apprehension of criminals in the act of committing crimes happened almost by accident.

Peel assigned his bobbies to specific geographic zones and held them responsible for preventing and suppressing crime within the boundaries of their zones. He based this strategy on his belief that the constables would:

* Become known to the public, and citizens with information about criminal activity would be more likely to tell a familiar figure than a stranger * Become familiar with people and places and thus better able to recognize suspicious persons or criminal activity, and * Be highly visible on their posts, tending to deter criminals from committing crimes in the immediate vicinity.

To implement fully the beat concept, Peel instituted his second most enduring innovation: The paramilitary command structure. While Peel believed overall civilian control to be essential, he also believed that only military discipline would ensure that constables actually walked their beats and enforced the law on London's mean streets, something their nonmilitary predecessors, the watchmen, had failed to do.

If GM wants to keep his head in the sand regarding this situation, which as I mentioned before CANNOT BE VIEWED IN A VACUUM, that is his prerogative. Evidently I and several members of Congress are not the only ones concerned about what is going on with DHS. To view this as simply "hype" defies logic:

If GM wants to keep his head in the sand regarding this situation, which as I mentioned before CANNOT BE VIEWED IN A VACUUM, that is his prerogative. Evidently I and several members of Congress are not the only ones concerned about what is going on with DHS. To view this as simply "hype" defies logic:

If you have better numbers, let me know. Off the top of my head, there are roughly 800,000 federal, state and local level law enforcement officers in the US. If I recall correctly, there are about 150 million gun owners in the US.

In 2004, federal agencies employed approximately 105,000 full-time personnel authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Compared with 2002, employment of such personnel increased by 13%.

GM - I think I've made my points quite clearly in my previous posts, several of which you continue to refuse to address. Like I said - if you want to believe this is all 'hype,' that is your prerogative. I'll let readers of the forum decide for themselves after reviewing the numerous posts here, along with the links I've included. I am through arguing with you about this.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

a) that "weapon of war" is a private vehicle, not one being used as part of serving no-knock warrants by men in masks in the middle of the nightb) in so far as that cute old picture of the police from nearly 100 years ago goes, I would note that at the time submachine guns were legal for citizens too (rough parity between the unorganized militia and the state) and they aren't wearing masks.c) the uniform is not the issue here, it is the weaponry and the anonymityd) "“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008"

a) that "weapon of war" is a private vehicle, not one being used as part of serving no-knock warrants by men in masks in the middle of the night

Either something is a "weapon of war" or it isn't. An armored car isn't one, just as an AR-15 isn't either. The other side like to use inflammitory language to hide their lack of a compelling argument. We shouldn't do it either.No-knock warrants are lawful acts performed by law enforcement with the obvious approval of judges. The masks used are usually either protective maskes, either nomex and/or armor, and/or used by officers working in a U/C capacity to keep them viable in that tasking.

b) in so far as that cute old picture of the police from nearly 100 years ago goes, I would note that at the time submachine guns were legal for citizens too (rough parity between the unorganized militia and the state) and they aren't wearing masks.

The object of tactical teams is to rapidly gain the tactical advantage and resolve the situtation without firing a shot whenever possible. It's not a "fair fight", it's about preserving life whenever possible.c) the uniform is not the issue here, it is the weaponry and the anonymity

Any anonymity is only temporary and discoverable in the legal process and through professional standards complaints and civil litigation. Why is the weaponry an issue? If an officer shoots someone with a Sharps Buffalo rifle used by a Deputy US Marshal in the 1880's, he'd probably be worse off than if he caught a single round from a modern AR variant.

d) "“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008"

As much as it pains me to defend the worthless douche in question, let's look at the speech:

Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.

So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.

The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.

Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,

"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."

Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.

It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."

That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.

Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.

The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.

Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.

In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.

Note: the author has experience in community organizing. For example, he organized one of the earliest Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, in continuous service for over 30 years. He trained over a hundred Illinois non-profit organizations to resettle Vietnamese Refugees. He assembled three dozen congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, in continuous operation for 25 years. He was an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state's Commission on Human Rights was being drafted.

"d) "“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008"

"A civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the United States military" - it turns out the President-to-be was mocking the constitutional phrase 'well regulated militias'. He was actually proposing to expand the government workforce or, worse yet, make government service mandatory for young people. Unarmed but "just as powerful, just as strong" is an example of why people here came up with the phrase "cognitive dissonance - glibness'. Meanwhile he is disarming our military and canceling missile defense sites.

Tough words like unarmed civilians did not scare off the Benghazi attackers, just like gun free zone signs don't scare off criminals.

President Barack Obama made another push Wednesday to build support for gun-control laws in the wake of December's mass school shooting in Connecticut. But since then, states have passed more measures expanding rather than restricting the right to carry firearms.

Arkansas eliminated prohibitions on carrying firearms in churches and on college campuses. South Dakota authorized school boards to arm teachers. Tennessee passed a law allowing workers to bring guns to work and store them in their vehicles, even if their employer objects. Kentucky shortened the process for obtaining licenses to carry a concealed gun.

Those laws, along with the long odds for major federal gun-control legislation, show how the march toward expanded gun rights in recent years has hardly slowed since Mr. Obama pledged to use the "full force" of his office to tighten limits after 20 children and six adult staffers were killed at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

This year, five states have passed seven laws that strengthen gun restrictions, while 10 states have passed 17 laws that weaken them, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks and promotes gun-control laws.

Gun-control advocates have scored some victories. In New York and Colorado, which was the site of a movie-theater shooting last July that left 12 dead, new laws require background checks for all firearm sales and limit the size of ammunition magazines. Early Thursday, Connecticut lawmakers approved legislation to expand the state's ban on certain semiautomatic weapons and require background checks for all firearm sales, among other restrictions. Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, has said he would sign such a measure.

Kristin Goss, a Duke University professor of public policy who supports gun-control legislation, said these measures are more sweeping than the gun-rights expansions in other states, which she called "technical and incremental."

Still, gun-control bills have faltered in Congress and other states, while pro-gun-rights bills move along elsewhere. On Tuesday, an Indiana House committee passed a bill that would require an armed staffer in every school.

The pattern shows the power of the gun lobby in state legislatures, particularly compared with gun-control groups, which have typically focused on federal legislation. The National Rifle Association and other gun-advocacy groups spent $2.3 million on state legislative battles from 2007 through 2012, compared with $55,000 by gun-control groups over the period, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan government-watchdog group.

President Obama spoke about gun control at the Denver Police Academy Wednesday, saying "there doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights."

NRA spokeswoman Alexa Fritts said the group has been more concerned this year with blocking new restrictions than expanding gun rights. "Right now it's more of a defensive stance," she said.

The efforts have proved largely successful, advocates on both sides say, in part thanks to a conviction in much of the U.S. that access to firearms offers the best protection against crime and serves as a check on government. In Hartford, Conn., Wednesday, gun owners flocked to the capital and booed pro-gun-control lawmakers as they passed through the halls ahead of the vote on the state's firearms restrictions.

Backers of many of the bills since Newtown say arming school staff could prevent another similar tragedy. Gun opponents disagree, and a report released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress said it found "a clear link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws." However, economist John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," has concluded that state laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons have reduced violent crime. The National Research Council, part of the congressionally chartered National Academies, has disputed his findings.

.In Congress, the Senate is expected to soon consider legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales, but it faces resistance from most Republicans, who generally oppose gun restrictions, and some Democrats. It also lacks two measures championed by Mr. Obama: a renewed ban on certain semiautomatic weapons known as assault rifles, and new limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines. If the bill passes the Senate, it faces an even tougher vote in the Republican-controlled House.

Wednesday in Denver, Mr. Obama urged action, noting that more than 2,000 Americans had been killed by gun violence since the Newtown shooting. "Every day we wait to do something about it, even more are stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun," according to the president's prepared remarks.

State lawmakers on both sides of the gun debate have each introduced more than 500 gun-related bills this year. But gun-control legislation has reached governors' desks in seven states, while legislation expanding gun rights has made it that far in 15, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The center's tallies don't include legislation addressing penalties for gun crimes or exceptions in gun laws for law enforcement, among other areas.

Among the bills awaiting governors' signatures are a North Dakota measure that would eliminate prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons in churches and a Montana bill that would allow residents to carry a concealed gun without a permit. A spokeswoman for Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat, said he was reviewing the bill. The office of North Dakota Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple said he would review the bill when he receives it.

Also helping the pro-gun-rights cause is that Republicans control 30 governorships and have full control of most state legislatures, easing the path for gun-rights measures. Of the 15 legislatures that have passed pro-gun-rights bills on to the governor, 13 are controlled by Republicans.

Democrat-controlled legislatures have failed to pass gun limits in some states, like Washington and New Mexico, and have had to weaken gun-control bills in others, including Minnesota. The Washington bill, to require universal background checks, failed last month despite Democrats' 55-to-43 advantage in the House and residents' 79% approval for the bill, according to a state poll.

Meanwhile, pro-gun bills have been defeated in Republican-controlled statehouses, including in Georgia and Utah, where Republican Gov. Gary Herbert last month vetoed legislation that would have allowed residents to carry a concealed gun without a permit. Utah also has enacted two laws that expand gun rights and two that restrict them.

Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the advocacy group co-founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said the post-Newtown push for gun control is "promising but far from complete." He added, "Progress will come steadily but slowly, in a patchwork way."

Dave Workman, spokesman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a lobbying group, said in the four months since the Newtown shooting, "gun-rights activists have been holding their own," and now he expects public sentiment to shift away from gun control because "the knees have stopped jerking."

That shift in sentiment may be happening. A CBS News poll taken in late March showed 47% of Americans supported stricter gun-control laws, down from a peak of 57% just after December's Newtown shooting.

Gun-control advocates are now largely focusing on seven states where they say there is still chance for significant gun-control legislation: California, Oregon, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois.

California lawmakers will consider more than a dozen gun-control bills this month, including one that would ban rifles with detachable magazines and another that would require ammunition sellers to obtain permits and buyers to register.

Washington state Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat, said he would introduce his bill on background checks again next session, but its success depends on whether gun-control advocates can match the political fervor of their gun-rights counterparts.

"Did Newtown change the world in how people are going to engage on this issue?" he said. "Or is it one of those flashes in the pan, where after a few months Americans' attention will fade and turn to another issue?"

"It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities." So reads Section 123 of the Senate's gun control bill (S. 649). In plain English, that means anyone who fails to report a missing firearm to the local police and the U.S. attorney general within 24 hours becomes a felon and faces five years in prison. This is an outrageous and unreasonable requirement, and should doom the bill to failure. And that's not to mention other provisions such as prohibiting leaving your firearm at home for more than seven days with someone who isn't the owner.Meanwhile, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) is pushing the Firearm Risk Protection Act, which would require that gun owners purchase liability insurance or pay a $10,000 fine. "For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence," Maloney said in a written statement. "My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons." We're going out on a limb by guessing that criminals won't be deterred by such a requirement, but fortunately the bill is unlikely to go anywhere.

In the states, the Constitution State became the latest one to trample its namesake document. Democrat Gov. Dannel Malloy signed legislation adding more than 100 firearms to its ban on semiautomatic rifles. It also bans standard-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds and creates eligibility rules for purchasing ammunition.

The good news, reports The Wall Street Journal, is that since December "states have passed more measures expanding rather than restricting the right to carry firearms."Finally, the UN passed its Arms Trade Treaty with U.S. support. The Obama administration waited until it had post-election "flexibility" to announce that it would no longer demand passage by "consensus," which helped propel the treaty through. The treaty could subject, at least in part, U.S. sovereignty and Second Amendment rights to a corrupt world body full of anti-American despots and tyrants. The only good news is that the treaty has almost no chance of passing the Senate, where it needs a two-thirds majority for ratification but could fail to garner even a majority.

Today's BIG Lie Award Winner

"[Colorado] treasures its Second Amendment rights -- a state of proud hunters and sportsmen. ... Surely we can have a debate ... to do something to stop the epidemic of gun violence. There's no reason we can't do this unless politics is getting in the way." --Barack Obama, repeating his mendacious mantra that the Second Amendment is about "hunters and sportsmen"

Besides, the epidemic is not "gun violence" but "violence" -- almost all of it is the direct result of socialist polices creating urban poverty plantations where gangs thrive. Oddly, Democrats have yet to campaign against gang violence. The only "politics getting in the way" is Obama's political agenda, which has nothing to do with reducing violence and everything to do with reducing the capacity of the people to defend Liberty.

"The opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what's being proposed, nothing to do with the facts, but feeds [sic] into this suspicion about government. You hear some of these quotes: 'I need a gun to protect myself from the government.' 'We can't do background checks because the government's gonna come take my guns away.' The government's us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you, I am elected by you. I am constrained as they are constrained by a system that our founders put in place. This is a government of and by and for the people." --Obama

For the record, if Obama was truly "constrained by a system that our founders put in place," we would not be having this debate.

"t is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don't have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly." --Obama, continuing to deliberately confuse the issue of semi-auto and fully automatic weapons

Furthermore, Obama often makes his pitches not just on the caskets of children, but backed by uniformed police officers -- as if these police departments support his anti-constitutional agenda. By now, we know that nothing is beneath this president, including the shameless use of children, the military and law enforcement officers as "human shields" for furthering his agenda. It's inexcusable, and we're glad to see some of Denver's finest balking at the practice.

The GOP's Gun Control Misfire The filibuster threat is giving political cover to Senate Democrats..

'This is about these families and families all across the country who are saying, 'Let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down,'" President Obama declared Monday, in unusually demagogic remarks even by his standards. He added, "What's more important to you: our children, or an A-grade from the gun lobby?"

Mr. Obama is lapsing into such crude appeals—support his gun-control agenda or suborn mass child murder—because he knows his real problems aren't the gun lobby. They're members of his own party who answer to law-abiding voters who support Second Amendment rights. So the political wonder is that some Republicans and conservative activists seem determined to convert the gun debate (such as it is) that Mr. Obama is losing into a 2014 Democratic advantage.

After Newtown, Mr. Obama endorsed such symbolic and constitutionally doubtful measures as magazine-capacity limits and reinstating the 1990s-era federal ban on certain "assault weapons." None of this would prevent the next massacre or even reduce gun violence—and the overreach means his ambitions may not pass even in the Democratic Senate.

California's Dianne Feinstein barely got the rifle ban out of committee, and then Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to include it and other White House provisions in the gun bill he had to be dragooned into backing. Mr. Reid still hasn't released the policy details about enhanced background checks for private gun sales, which is one of the few items that might cobble together a majority.

Enter a faction of Republicans led by Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas, who late last month said they'll use the filibuster to prevent the Reid bill from coming to the floor. On Tuesday Minority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed the gambit, and the Heritage Action for America PAC says it plans to "score" the filibuster as a key vote for election purposes.

In an instant, these GOP wizards have taken the onus off Senate Democrats and made Republicans the media's gun-control focus. Mr. Reid is now bellowing about Republicans blocking a vote, and Democrats such as Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) and Mark Begich (Alaska) don't have to declare themselves on provisions that might be unpopular at home.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama can retreat to his favorite pose of portraying Republicans as obstructionists, which pressures GOP moderates like Maine Senator Susan Collins. "And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms," Mr. Obama said on Monday—without mentioning that the "folks" who oppose his bill are Democrats.

The President's calculation seems to be that even if gun control fails, at least he'll have a keep-kids-safe political issue to help flip the House back to Democratic control in the next midterm. In that sense his inflammatory rhetoric is meant to bait Republicans, some of whom are biting.

If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor. They can always filibuster the final bill if they want to, but it makes no sense to paint themselves into a political box canyon before even knowing what they're voting on.

A new online survey suggests that the vast majority of active and former police officers adamantly oppose President Barack Obama’s proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

The study, conducted by first-responder community website PoliceOne.com, included more than 15,000 self-identified active and retired law enforcement officers, with 99 percent of respondents saying that policies other than an assault-weapons ban are most important in preventing future mass shootings.

“The American people, and particularly the members of law enforcement, want politicians in Washington to stop pursuing a failed political agenda and get to work fixing our broken mental health system, improving school security, and getting criminals off the streets,” said the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris Cox.

Here are the rest of the survey’s results: •99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings. •Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime. •More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains. •More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans. •More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence. •80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence. •Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime. •More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime. •More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm. •More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime. •More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales. •Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally. •More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

The full survey can be found here. PoliceOne verifies that members are police officers by requiring them to submit a photograph or scanned copy of government-issued law enforcement identification. It is unclear whether only verified members could participate in the survey.

The online survey is not necessarily statistically indicative of the attitudes of law enforcement nationally.

By KRISTINA PETERSON WASHINGTON—Senate lawmakers were expected to vote Thursday on whether to bring a gun bill to the floor of the chamber, following a bipartisan deal reached a day earlier to expand background checks for firearms sales.

Wednesday's agreement bolstered support for one of President Barack Obama's top priorities following December's Newtown, Conn., school shooting, though the Senate could debate gun control through the end of April.

The deal, crafted by Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) and backed by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), would require background checks—and paper records of the checks—for sales at gun shows and over the Internet. The bipartisan agreement considerably boosts the chances of the Senate passing an expansion of background checks.

Still, immediate resistance from the National Rifle Association, the country's largest gun lobby, could make it difficult for some red-state Democrats and Republicans to embrace the deal. Democrats are optimistic most in their party will support the measure and think Mr. Toomey's support could bring on as many as a dozen Republicans, a Senate Democratic aide said.

Any measures that pass the Senate likely will face tougher resistance in the GOP-controlled House.

Messrs. Manchin and Toomey, both gun owners who carry "A" ratings from the NRA, cast their deal as a common-sense measure that wouldn't infringe on constitutional rights to own a gun.

"I don't consider criminal background checks to be gun control," Mr. Toomey said at a news conference with Mr. Manchin on Wednesday. "If you pass a criminal-background check, you get to buy a gun."

The deal announced Wednesday came together after a week of negotiations between Messrs. Manchin and Toomey, and after Mr. Manchin had spent months trying to reach an agreement with Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.). The NRA had pressured Mr. Toomey to not become involved in the deal, according to a Senate aide.

Mr. Manchin said the background-check agreement will be the first amendment offered to the main Senate gun bill. That measure includes provisions to improve school security and strengthen penalties for people buying guns for others who aren't authorized to purchase them. It also includes an expansion of background checks that is broader than the Manchin-Toomey deal, reducing its support among some Democrats and Republicans. (MARC: I'm guessing this would be the terrible Schumer provisions; if a bait-and-switch is pulled here it would be a REALLY bad thing)

The agreement would broaden background checks beyond what is required under current federal law, but it dialed back Democrats' initial hopes of establishing "universal" background checks.

Under the deal, all buyers would have to undergo a background check conducted by a federally licensed dealer when purchasing firearms online or at a gun show. The lawmakers agreed to exempt gun sales or transfers between family members, friends and neighbors. Licensed dealers are already required to conduct background checks and keep paper records of sales.

"If you're going to a gun show, you should be subjected to the same [checks] as if you went to a gun store," Mr. Manchin told reporters.

The NRA and other gun groups say the paper record could eventually lead to government confiscation of weapons. To address those concerns, the measure states that the federal government can't create a national registry of gun owners.

The NRA criticized the deal in a statement Wednesday. Referring to three mass shootings in recent years, the group said "no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson." It called for efforts to address gun crimes in cities and to improve mental-health care.

Messrs. Manchin and Toomey appeared ready to split with the NRA, at least for one vote.

"My wife called me the other night, and she disagreed with something and I still love her," Mr. Manchin, a lifetime NRA member, said in an interview.

Some Republicans, including Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, said Wednesday they planned to review the new deal.

"They have made terrific progress in responding to a lot of the concerns that I personally had," said Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), who said she wanted to review the final language before deciding whether to support the measure.

A few Democrats also are undecided. Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska—all from Republican-leaning states and all facing re-election next year—indicated this week they were closely following developments on background checks but hadn't yet decided whether to support a deal.

"I haven't seen the bill," Mr. Begich said Wednesday evening.

Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said the NRA's biggest influence in the congressional gun debate may have been in forcing Democrats to recalibrate which measures stood any chance of becoming law.

Among the measures unlikely to pass the Senate are a proposed ban on certain semiautomatic rifles known as assault weapons and limiting the size of magazines to no more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) opted to exclude the most contentious measures from the main Senate gun bill but has said they would all receive votes as amendments.

Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters Wednesday the House would wait to review any gun-control bills until they clear the Senate.

At least one House Republican, Rep. Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania, said Wednesday he would support the background-check deal.

"This would create a consistent system throughout while protecting the rights of gun owners," Mr. Meehan said in an interview.

Under the deal, a buyer may purchase a firearm if a background check doesn't produce a "definitive response" from the national-records database within 48 hours, down from three business days under current law.

What I make of this is as follows: Quoting the author: "In an instant, these GOP wizards have taken the onus off Senate Democrats and made the Republicans the media's gun-control focus." Excuse me? Since WHEN has the media EVER made Democrats the villains in the gun-control debate? This legislation needs to be nipped in the bud, and the Republican ball-less wonders who are so afraid of the media need to grow a set, and make the case - forcefully and clearly - WHY this is a bad idea - which they have so far failed miserably to do.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 05:40:16 PM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Almost from the moment he walked into the Oval Office, Barack Obama has had a serious lying problem when it comes to firearms.

The 44th president has a near pathological predilection for using defective, invalid, and flat-out dishonest statistics in his quest to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens, a fact first pointed out here at PJ Media in the summer of 2009.

At that time, the president, then-Secretary of State of State Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder were heavily invested in promoting the deceptive theory that the supermajority of firearms being used by Mexican drug cartels were being purchased at gun stores in the United States and shipped over the border. The facts, however, didn’t come close to supporting the administration’s preposterous claim.

The automatic weapons being used by cartel gunmen and recovered at crime scenes — selective-fire AK-pattern assault rifles, M16 and M4 selective-fire assault rifles, hand grenades, 40mm grenade launchers, and more than a few heavy machine guns — are heavily regulated in the United States, and have been since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934.

Purchasing such firearms requires extensive and in-depth background checks, registration, finger-printing, a $200 tax stamp, and other onerous regulations. This has kept the number of these so-called “NFA” weapons to just roughly 250,000 in the United States. The Hughes Amendment tacked on to a federal bill in the mid 1980s means that no new NFA selective-fire weapons or machine guns have been released to the qualified general public for 27 years. The result is that these firearms are now cost-prohibitive collectors’ items, costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The president was attempting to sell the absurd claim that a civilian M16 worth $20,000 was being used once and discarded, when the firearms recovered were those stolen or sold by corrupt Mexican officials to the cartels, along with AK-47 and AKM assault rifles that can be picked up around the world for as low as $25 and moved in the same smuggling routes used by the cartels to move their drugs.

The 90-percent lie was gutted by officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in sworn testimony before Congress.

The myth that legal guns sales in the United States are responsible for Mexican drug cartel violence took another serious blow last week when an ATF official testified in Congress that only eight percent of weapons recovered in Mexico came through licensed U.S. gun dealers.

This figure is far lower than the 90 percent claim made previously as an appeal to reinstate ineffective gun laws that expired in 2004. The claim — still active among the less informed or serially dishonest — officially became myth during congressional testimony last week when Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, revealed the eight percent figure, how it was calculated, and where the 90 percent myth arose from.

Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers.

Despite being called out on these lies, both the administration and the mainstream media continued to propagate the 90-percent lie, apparently attempting to embed the false statistics in the public consciousness. It was only later that we discovered that this lie was being sold by the Obama administration at the same time as Operation Fast and Furious was smuggling more than 2,500 firearms to drug cartels.

The same Obama administration dynamic that created the 90-percent lie is repeating in what is easily titled the “40-percent lie,” a false claim made by the president that 40 percent of the gun transfers in the nation are conducted without a background check. The president and many members of the mainstream media have uncritically repeated this claim to bolster support for the Senate’s attempt to pass a law for universal background checks that the National Rifle Association views as a gun-registration scheme.

The problem is that claim isn’t supported by facts, as even the Washington Post was forced to admit:

There are two key problems with the president’s use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to “purchases” or “sales” when in fact the original report concerned “gun acquisitions” and “transactions.” Those are much broader categories of data.

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

…

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That’s at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote “we don’t know the current percentage — nor does anyone else.” But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.

Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.

Obama is making his claim using a statistically insignificant sample size, with data nearly 20 years old, collected under a different set of laws than those we’ve been operating under since Brady made NICS background checks the law of the land. It is irrelevant, invalid data, intentionally misrepresented as being current and relevant.

In short, the president has been caught in yet another lie attempting to support controversial firearms legislation that he would like to see passed. Barack Obama demanded a “national conversation” about gun control.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 68-31 to begin debate on a gun control package that will initially focus on three issues: expanded background checks for the purchase of firearms, harsher penalties for gun trafficking, and increased aid for school safety. ”The hard work starts now,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) after the vote.

The vote was a defeat for the 29 Republicans and two Democrats who were intent on filibustering the bill, arguing that the restrictions would would constitute a violation of the Second Amendment. ”This bill is a clear overreach that will predominantly punish and harass our neighbors, friends, and family,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) prior to the vote. Despite their defeat, gun control opponents were threatening to invoke a procedural rule that would force the Senate to wait 30 hours before beginning any consideration of amendments.

Whenever the debate actually begins, it is likely that the first amendment to be considered is the agreement reached Wednesday by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WVA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), scaling back the call for universal background checks contained in the current bill. The universal background checks were authored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). Sen. Reid expects to replace Schumer’s efforts with the compromise.

Yet that tradeoff reveals part of the problem with the process, in that the bill the Senate is debating will be changing substantially as time goes on — so much so, that many senators opposing yesterday’s vote contended that what they are actually voting on remains a mystery. They further noted that while the Manchin-Toomey deal represents a compromise, it is Schumer’s stricter provision that remains part of the bill. ”Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it,” Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), said in a statement. “The American people expect more and deserve better.”

Currently, background checks are limited to transactions conducted by the nation’s 55,000 licensed gun dealers. Gun control advocates insist that such a limitation allows too many sales to take place without checks, making it easier for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms. The Manchin-Toomey plan would expand background checks to cover unlicensed dealers at gun shows, and all sales conducted on the Internet.

It would also expand some rights of gun owners, allowing those who have undergone a background check within the last five years to obtain a concealed-carry permit allowing them to buy guns in other states. It would also make it easier for hunters carrying guns to travel through states that prohibit such weapons, and allow active military members to purchase firearms in their home states. They are currently prohibited from making such purchases when they are stationed somewhere else.

Despite such concessions, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other Second Amendment supporters remain leery, saying the proposal is still too restrictive. ”While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows,” the NRA said in a statement. “The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) took the argument one step further. On the Senate floor Wednesday, he warned that universal background checks could lead to a national gun registry that “would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights,” further noting that the government has no business monitoring any exercise of those rights. ”You see, the federal government has no business monitoring when or how often you go to church; what books and newspapers you read; who you vote for; your health conditions; what you eat for breakfast; and the details of your private life–including your lawful exercise of your rights protected by the Second Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights,” he explained.

Even though this compromise ostensibly waters down such checks, National Review’s Charles Cook explains that gun control advocates will eventually demand more. “Within a few weeks of the bill’s passage, the eerie progressive silence that has marked this tortured process will be broken, and when it is, legions of prominent gun controllers will take to their feet in order to argue that it makes ‘no sense’ for there to be ‘exemptions’ to the almost universal background-check system,” he warns.

His warning is too late with regard to some states. In New York, the state police initially forced ”David,” a 34-year-old college librarian, to turn in his guns after his pistol permit was suspended because he had taken anti-anxiety medication at some point in the past. The NY SAFE Act requires mental health professionals to inform the state when permit holders or would-be permit holders are ”likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” A day later, the state was forced to backtrack, when they discovered they had the wrong man. ”Today, we all look like fools,” said Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs.

“Fools” is putting it mildly. New York is not only forcing mental health professionals to be de facto agents of the state, it is making an utter mockery of the doctor-patient relationship, in which privacy ought to be the foremost concern. If such checks are implemented nationwide, a 2011 survey by Medco reveals that as many as one-in-five Americans, the number currently taking “mental-health-related medications,” could be affected. Furthermore, as the case in New York reveals, due process is hardly an impediment: David’s guns were confiscated prior to a hearing. ”Due process should come before the suspension,” said David’s attorney Jim Tresmond. ”That’s where due process comes in. Before your rights are taken, due process must occur. That’s our constitutional right, not the reverse.” David’s guns remain in police custody until a judge removes the suspension.

In Washington, gun control advocates remain determined to push, as well as expand, their agenda. Harry Reid has promised to re-introduce the assault weapons ban, dropped from the bill last month, as well as a ban on high-capacity magazines. President Obama brought the families of the Newtown shooting victims from Connecticut to Washington, D.C. aboard Air Force One on Tuesday to help push the legislation. And Freshman Senator Christopher S. Murphy (D-CN) gave his first speech on the Senate floor on gun violence Wednesday, displaying large photos of some of the children killed in the massacre to emphasize his efforts.

Bringing Newtown family members to Washington did not sit well with some gun rights supporters. “See, I think it’s so unfair of the administration to hurt these families, to make them think this has something to do with them when, in fact, it doesn’t,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) told the Huffington Post. He further contended that the families believe gun control is now a personal issue “because they’ve been told that by the president.” Senator Ted Cruz accused the Obama administration of “really playing on emotions. What it is not focused on are actual policies that will stop violent crime,” he added. The editorial board of Investors Business Daily, who decried the abuse of presidential power in bringing the Newtown families to the nation’s capital, wondered if Republicans can “now give Fast and Furious victims’ families taxpayer-funded flights to Washington?”

It wouldn’t matter if they could. The mainstream media chose to ignore that controversy. That would be the same mainstream media that has circled the wagons around gun control advocates, so much so that CNN has devoted two full days to pushing gun control legislation, even as Second Amendment supporters are ignored.

Yet whatever agreement the Senate reaches may all be for naught. The Republican-controlled House isn’t likely to allow a more restrictive gun control package to pass, even though House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated his intention to remain noncommittal prior to the Senate reaching an agreement. ”It’s one thing for [Manchin and Toomey] to come to some agreement. It doesn’t substitute the will for the other 98 members,” he told reporters.

Nonetheless, Joe Manchin expressed his hope that something would be accomplished. “Today is the start of a healthy debate that must end with the Senate and House, hopefully, passing these commonsense measures and the president signing it into law,” he said. “The event of Newtown, truly the events at Newton, changed us all. It changes our country, our communities, our town and it changed our hearts and minds.”

What hasn’t changed is the reality that nothing being proposed would have stopped Adam Lanza. Thus, this latest effort is nothing more than an unseemly attempt to use a horrific tragedy as a springboard to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans to bear arms. Therein lies the other fatal flaw in any gun control bill: only law-abiding people will be affected. Furthermore, those well-versed in the American left’s template of using incrementalism to get what they want, understand that concessions made now will lead to demands for further, and far more onerous, concessions later.

In short, the Second Amendment is under assault. It remains to be seen if America is still a nation of laws, or one that can be manipulated into surrendering constitutional rights for the illusion of safety. Here’s a video released yesterday showing a Chicago shopkeeper fighting off two armed assailants with a baseball bat. As you watch it, remember that Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation.

What’s going on in this video is real life. What’s going on in Washington is a farce: one hundred senators with armed security details are deciding how much more difficult they will make it for ordinary Americans to enjoy a similar measure of personal security. It doesn’t get more hypocritical than that.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2013, 10:12:51 AM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

The intentions and background of the prospective buyer were hidden, as is customary on such sites. The person posting these ads, however, left a phone number, enabling The New York Times to trace them to their source: Omar Roman-Martinez, 29, of Colorado Springs, who has a pair of felony convictions for burglary and another for motor vehicle theft, as well as a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction — all of which bar him from having guns. Yet he was so determined he even offered to trade a tablet computer or a vintage Pepsi machine for firearms.

When questioned in a telephone interview, Mr. Roman-Martinez said he ultimately decided not to buy a weapon. He also insisted that a 9-millimeter handgun he posted for sale on the Web site last month belonged to someone else.

“I’m a felon,” he said. “I can’t possess firearms.”

The mere fact that Mr. Roman-Martinez was seeking to buy and sell guns on Armslist underscores why extending background checks to the growing world of online sales has become a centerpiece of new gun legislation being taken up in the Senate this week. With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.

The bipartisan Senate compromise under consideration would require that background checks be conducted through federally licensed dealers on all Internet and gun show sales. Gun control advocates argue that such checks might have prevented shootings like that of Zina Haughton, 42, who was killed in October with two other women by her husband, Radcliffe, even though a restraining order barred him from having guns. Mr. Haughton simply contacted a private seller on Armslist and handed over $500 in a McDonald’s parking lot for a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol and three magazines.

Seeking a glimpse into the largely hidden online gun market, The Times assembled a database and analyzed several months of ads from Armslist, which has become the dominant player in the arena, and examined numerous smaller sites.

Over the past three months, The Times identified more than 170,000 gun ads on Armslist. Some were for the same guns, making it difficult to calculate just how many guns were actually for sale. Even so, with more than 20,000 ads posted every week, the number is probably in the tens of thousands.

Notably, 94 percent of the ads were posted by “private parties,” who, unlike licensed dealers, are not required to conduct background checks.

Besides Mr. Roman-Martinez, the Times investigation led to Gerard Toolin, 46, of Walterboro, S.C., who is a fugitive from the Rhode Island police and has two outstanding felony warrants as well as a misdemeanor warrant. His legal status bars him from owning guns, but he was recently seeking to buy an AK-47 assault rifle on Armslist and was also trying to trade a Marlin rifle. He posted photos to his Facebook account of an AK-47 he had already purchased, along with a variety of other guns.

There was also Martin Fee, who has a domestic battery conviction in Florida and other arrests and convictions in Florida and New Jersey, including for drug possession, burglary and larceny. He was selling a Chinese SKS rifle on the classified section of another Web site, BudsGunShop.com.

The examination of Armslist raised questions about whether many sellers are essentially functioning as unlicensed firearms dealers, in contravention of federal law. The law says that people who “engage in the business” of selling firearms need to obtain a license and conduct background checks on customers. While the definition of engaging in business is vague, The Times found that more than two dozen people had posted more than 20 different guns for sale in a several-month span.

Among them was Joshua Lovejoy, 32, who since November has advertised more than 100 guns on Armslist, mostly in Canton, Ohio, ranging from AR-15 assault rifles to Glock 19 semiautomatic pistols. He once listed more than 20 guns in a single ad. He insisted in a telephone interview, however, that he had sold only a few.

Then there was Ron Metz, 49, who has advertised more than 80 guns from Anderson, S.C., since February. Mr. Metz said in an interview he had needed money, so he started selling some guns and trading for others. He also bought other guns, which he turned around and sold as well. He said he had no real idea how many he had sold, guessing that it was more than a dozen. He never keeps any records and does not do any background checks, explaining: “I can just sort of read people.”

“You think I broke a law?” he asked.

‘A Gun Show That Never Ends’

Armslist was the brainchild of Jonathan Gibbon and Brian Mancini, friends who attended the United States Air Force Academy and then transferred to the University of Pittsburgh.===================

Page 2 of 4)

Mr. Gibbon, who did not respond to requests for comment, said in a 2010 interview with Human Events, a conservative Web site, that he got the idea for Armslist during the summer of 2007 when he saw that the classifieds Web site Craigslist.com had decided to ban gun-related ads “because a few users cried out for it.” Mr. Gibbon, who went on to law school at the University of Oklahoma, where he founded the Second Amendment Club, said he had been inspired to “create a place for law-abiding gun owners to buy and sell online without all of the hassles of auctions and shipping.”

Gerard Toolin is a fugitive from the Rhode Island police and has two outstanding felony warrants, but has engaged in transactions on an online gun site. Background checks are not required for such sales.

Bearing Arms

Omar Roman-Martinez, 29, of Colorado Springs, has a pair of felony convictions for burglary and another for motor vehicle theft. He nevertheless sought a weapon on a Web site and earlier posted one for sale.

Mr. Mancini, who designed the site, recently left the company. Mr. Gibbon remains the site’s owner, while also practicing law in Pennsylvania, according to his profile on LinkedIn. Armslist LLC, registered with the Oklahoma secretary of state, lists an office suite in Pittsburgh as its business address.

When asked by Human Events to describe the site, Mr. Gibbon said: “Imagine a gun show that never ends.”

Gun shows have long been a source of concern for gun control advocates and law enforcement officials, because many allow unregulated sales without background checks. Web sites make such transactions far more widely available, with just a few clicks of a mouse.

A 2011 undercover investigation by the City of New York examined private party gun sellers on a range of Web sites, including Armslist, to see if they would sell guns to someone who said that they probably could not pass a background check. (Federal law bars sales to any person the seller has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing firearms). Investigators found seventy-seven of 125 online sellers agreed to sell the weapons anyway.

Armslist posts a disclaimer on its home page, urging users to “comply with local, state, federal, and international law.” But it also makes clear that the site “does not become involved in transactions between parties.”

What the site does do is make it simple for anyone seeking to buy a gun without a background check, enabling users to filter gun ads in their state by ones being sold by private parties.

Federal law places one significant restriction on transactions among private parties, barring people from directly selling guns to people in other states who are not licensed firearms dealers. Licensed dealers must act as intermediaries in transactions across state lines and perform background checks. But an examination of ads on the Web site shows that illegal interstate transactions can occur.

An ad for a “new in box” Ruger rifle posted on April 1 in Indianapolis stated that if the buyer was out of state, the seller would ship to the buyer’s “front door,” “person to private person.”

A seller on another ad, posted April 2, in Brighton, Colo., vented about repeated no-shows in his previous attempts to sell the gun, so he made clear, “No more out of state.”

Many ads simply require the transactions occur “face to face.” Some even provide assurances: “no questions asked” and “no paperwork.”

The loose online atmosphere was evident in the case of an Arizona gun dealer, Walter Young, who pleaded guilty last week to a federal gun charge stemming from an investigation into his sale of a .50-caliber rifle, dozens of gun kits and thousands of rounds of ammunition to an anonymous buyer who contacted him on Gunbroker.com.

Mr. Young — a Tea Party activist who posted a YouTube video in February suggesting he was being persecuted for criticizing the government — told federal agents he shipped everything to an address in Texas near the Mexican border, without even knowing the identity of the recipient, according to court records. After initially lying to investigators, he admitted looking the other way in his online dealings, records show.

“Young stated there was a general ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy in the gun world when it came to wanting to know why a person was purchasing a particular item, and for that reason he did not question people he sold items to,” federal prosecutors said in a court filing.

Mr. Ladera, who had sold about 20 guns on Armslist over the previous year, agreed to meet at a casino but increased the price of the handgun to $600, from $400, because he was from out of state, according to court records. After buying the gun, Mr. Smirnov drove to Chicago, where he stalked Jitka Vesel, a woman he had briefly dated a few years earlier, and on April 13, 2011, shot and killed her. Mr. Smirnov turned himself into authorities and was later sentenced to life in prison.

Federal authorities also arrested Mr. Ladera, who pleaded guilty to making an illegal transfer of a firearm to a nonstate resident and was sentenced to one year in prison. Last year, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Armslist on behalf of Ms. Vesel’s family.

In the case of Radcliffe Haughton, the Wisconsin man who killed his wife, the person who sold him the gun on Armslist told federal investigators that he had checked Mr. Haughton’s driver’s license to make sure he was a Wisconsin resident. He also said he asked Mr. Haughton if he was prohibited from having firearms, but he indicated he was not.

Despite these cases, it appears that prosecutions of people who illegally buy and sell guns on the Internet are relatively unusual. A review of nearly 100 court cases in which federal authorities seized guns over the last year found that in very few instances were Internet transactions the focus of the investigations.

Anonymity Is the Rule

Identifying the people who buy and sell guns on these online forums is impossible in most cases because the sites protect the anonymity of their users.

On Armslist, potential buyers can contact sellers directly through the Web site, without making their contact information public. In some cases where people included phone numbers in their ads, The Times tried to trace them — a task made more difficult because most were unlisted cellphones — and determine if the people had criminal records or other firearms prohibitions.

Many numbers led nowhere. Among the ones that were traceable, most people examined had clean records, or had only misdemeanor convictions that did not disqualify them from having weapons. In some cases that raised questions, it was impossible to conclusively verify identities. But several people emerged who clearly should not be buying or selling guns.

Omar Roman-Martinez spent a little more than a year in prison, getting out in 2010, after pleading guilty to second-degree burglary for breaking into a car with some friends, taking a key and an address, and then going to the person’s house, where they made off with jewelry, a safe and electronics. He had prior felony convictions for burglarizing an auto-parts store and for stealing a car from a car dealership, and a misdemeanor assault conviction for biting and repeatedly using a telephone receiver to hit the woman he was living with, according to court and police records.

Mr. Roman-Martinez initially posted general inquiries on Armslist, looking to buy a handgun for cash and then ammunition. He also tried to sell a Jimenez Arms 9-millimeter handgun. In mid-March, he offered to trade a tablet computer that “has the works” for a handgun or pistol grip shotgun. Later, he posted an ad offering a “working condition 1970s pepsi machine” for “nice firearms or one nice one.”

He explained in the ad: “These machines are very wanted and most dont work mine does shot me an offer.”

When queried, Mr. Roman-Martinez initially acknowledged the ads but tried to sidestep, saying that he never acquired a gun and that the one he was trying to sell was not his. By the end of the conversation, however, he denied he had anything to do with the ads.

The conversation unfolded similarly with Gerard Toolin, the man with outstanding felony warrants from Rhode Island who is now living in South Carolina. The charges against Mr. Toolin, which date to 2002, relate to allegations he defrauded people through his heating and cooling business. He skipped out on court appearances and fled the state, records show.

He posted an ad on Armslist on April 9, in which he wrote, “I am looking to buy A ak-47.” Initially unaware of who was calling, Mr. Toolin eagerly explained to a reporter that he already had one and was looking to acquire a second.

After the reporter identified himself and asked about his warrants, Mr. Toolin said, “Who says I’m buying a weapon for myself?” ==================

Page 4 of 4)

But Mr. Toolin had also posted several ads in March, seeking to trade a Marlin 336SC rifle for a 12-gauge tactical shotgun — a combat-style weapon. Pictures posted on Mr. Toolin’s Facebook page, in which he “likes” Armslist’s Facebook page, made clear that he possessed an array of weapons. He posted a picture of an AK-47 in mid-March, saying: “I would like everyone to welcome the newest member of my family ... I adopted her yesterday.” Another photo posted in late November showed him loaded down with weapons, including an assault rifle and several pistols strapped to his body. He captioned the snapshot: “I don’t think I have enough maybe one or two more.”

When asked about the photographs, Mr. Toolin said: “You sure they’re real guns? How do you know they’re not reproductions?”

Minutes after the conversation, he took his Facebook account offline.

The Times also found Martin Fee, of Vero Beach, Fla., while examining a listing for a Chinese SKS rifle on Budsgunshop.com. In the ad, Mr. Fee said he would not sell to anyone living in New York, New Jersey or “the People’s Republic of California.” A Twitter account belonging to “Marty Fee” of Vero Beach is filled with vitriolic postings about President Obama and liberals, including one that says the president and attorney general “should be chained n shot.”

Mr. Fee, 45, has an arrest record dating back decades, and it is difficult to verify which charges resulted in convictions. But a domestic battery conviction from 1999, resulting from a dispute between Mr. Fee and his then-wife that turned physical, appeared to disqualify him from possessing firearms.

Reached by phone last week, Mr. Fee said he had sold the gun and had it shipped to a licensed dealer. When a reporter asked him how he could own a gun with his domestic violence conviction, he backpedaled, insisting that the SKS rifle was not actually his, and that he “posted it up there for a friend of mine.”

“I never saw the weapon, I never touched the weapon,” he said, declining to identify the friend. He then ended the call. Shortly thereafter, his ad disappeared from the Web site.

When Is a ‘Seller’ a ‘Dealer’?

Under current law, the question of when a background check must occur depends on who is selling the gun. Federal regulations require licensed dealers to perform checks, but the legal definition of who must be licensed is blurry. Regulations define a dealer as a “person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.” People engaged in only “occasional sales” for their personal collections, or for a hobby, are exempted.

But precisely how many guns it takes for the “occasional” seller to become a dealer is not specified.

The design of the Armslist site makes it difficult to tie together all of the ads of individual sellers in order to identify the most active. Again, a phone number makes the task easier. Using phone numbers, as well as computer analysis, The Times connected all the ads for some sellers, including Mr. Lovejoy, who has advertised scores of guns for sale on Armslist over the last few months. One ad in January listed more than 20 guns, including several AR-15 assault rifles and an array of AMD-65s, a Hungarian variant of the AK-47.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Lovejoy, who is a paramedic and is studying to become a nurse, described his buying and selling of guns on Armslist and other sites as a “hobby.”

“A lot of times when I get rid of something that I have, I don’t make a penny on it,” he said.

Mr. Lovejoy said he always made sure to look at buyers’ driver’s licenses to check that they were Ohio residents and that he would occasionally record a bill of sale, with phone numbers, but no names and addresses. He said he supported proposals to require background checks on Internet sales.

“It would give me more peace of mind,” he said.

While Mr. Lovejoy was willing to discuss his ads with a reporter, other Armslist sellers reacted differently. Noel Lee Velarde, who has advertised more than 30 guns out of Flint, Mich., on Armslist dating back to late January, twice hung up on a reporter.

Bob Vivona, 69, who describes himself as an Army veteran and retired police detective sergeant, has advertised more than 20 guns on Armslist out of Missouri going back to February. Even though it is not required by law, he said, he takes it upon himself to look people’s names up in a statewide online court database. He said he was simply getting rid of guns he had bought but found he did not like, insisting there was nothing wrong with the number of guns he was selling.

You’ll also notice that many of the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have lower rates of homicide. The correlation is not 100%, but there is more correlation with more gun ownership = fewer homicides and less gun ownership = more homicides than the reverse.

“Schumer’s spokesman Brian Fallon took note of Gun Owners of America’s role in the debate, tweeting a link to the [New York] Times profile and saying the group ‘is making deal on even background checks extremely hard.’” - TPM Media, “Democrats Blame Gun Owners of America for Gun Control Setback,” April 8, 2013You guys did it. We all did it - together!For four months, the laughing hyenas on MSNBC and in the White House have been cackling hysterically about the "bitter clingers" who actually own guns and value the Second Amendment.Well, who’s laughing now?The TPM quote above indicated - more than a week ago - that things weren’t going well for anti-gun Democrats. The New York Times also lamented on April 3 that:The group [GOA] has already been successful in both freezing senators, particularly Republicans, who have appeared to be on the fence about supporting bills to expand background checks.Have you ever wondered if your activism makes any difference at all? Well, today, you saw a dramatic answer to that question, as we won an incredible victory.You guys scorched the Senate offices with phone calls. Many of you reported to us that their phones were ringing endlessly (as they were busy handling other calls) ... that in many cases your Senator's mailboxes were full ... and in some cases, that they even hung up on you.Today was a textbook example of how grassroots activism makes a difference! But even still, you can be sure that the gun grabbers will be back soon, trying hard to resurrect this issue.And that’s why your GOA will remain ever vigilant and will alert you to any proposed infringements of your liberty.Here are the highlights of what happened today:(1) The most important vote was the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer national gun registry proposal. With 60 votes needed for passage, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer amendment was shot down by a vote of 54-46.GOA and NRA strongly opposed the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer amendment. But we were surprised to see that another gun group - not only said they supported the Toomey language, but - said they helped write the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer text. Thankfully, their support for this gun control language was not enough to get it passed.(2) The Cornyn-Vitter-Thune amendment - pushed hard by Gun Owners of America - received a 57-43 vote (so we fell three votes short since 60 were needed). This provision would have allowed concealed carry holders and persons in constitutional carry states to carry nationwide. The overwhelming vote on this amendment sets the stage for bringing it up again and again on must-pass legislation.(3) As predicted, the Feinstein gun ban lost by a vote of 40-60 - falling far short of a majority - and the magazine ban lost by a vote of 46-54.Today is a day to celebrate! We thank God for all of you and for all the Help that we have received in this long struggle to stop infringements of our liberties.Here’s what is still left for tomorrow.Harry Reid’s bill (S. 649) is still on the floor of the Senate, and there are two scheduled votes that will take place tomorrow. Eventually, the Senate will vote on whether to end debate on the bill (known as cloture), but that vote won’t necessarily take place tomorrow. The Senate will need 60 votes to end debate, but if they can’t reach that threshold, the bill effectively dies.So GOA is telling Senators to vote AGAINST cloture on the bill, whenever that vote comes.ACTION: We think that we can defeat cloture on final passage of the bill. But, to be safe, GOA is encouraging activists to contact their Senators and urge them oppose cloture! You can reach them at 202-224-3121.

The announcement comes on a day when the Senate appears likely to block further debate on a bipartisan background checks bill.

“Rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding Americans, we should be focusing on keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, which this legislation accomplishes,” Cruz said. “While the Obama Administration continues to politicize a terrible tragedy to push its anti-gun agenda, I am proud to stand beside my fellow senators to present common-sense measures that will increase criminal prosecutions of felons who try to buy guns, criminalize straw purchasing and gun trafficking, and address mental health issues.”

Grassley and Cruz, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.) introduced the bill at a press conference Wednesday morning, just hours before the Senate will vote on it and other gun control measures.

One of the primary criticisms Republicans had before a vote to move forward on a background checks bill last week was that they didn’t have time to read it before the vote.

Cruz said that despite the late hour, his legislation has 20 co-sponsors and had been circulated among Republicans and Democrats with no negative feedback. He predicted that despite the small window before the vote, the bill would garner bipartisan support.

The bill would increase the resources available to prosecutors for violators of gun laws, and creates a “Cruz Task Force” to prosecute those who fail criminal background checks. The task force is funded through an Asset Forfeiture Fund.

The bill criminalizes straw purchasing and trafficking, measures Grassley supported in committee hearings on the gun control bill that will go before the Senate later this month. It also seeks to increase safety at schools, keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and increases accountability for prosecutions at the executive level by requiring the Department of Justice to submit reports to Congress.

The senators were particularly critical of the Obama administration’s record of prosecuting background check violations, saying it only took up a small portion of such cases.

The bill does not expand background checks, but rather “focuses on making the backgrounds system work better…by encouraging states to report mental health records,” Cruz said.

The National Rifle Association said it supports the bill.

The bill includes provisions making it easier to purchase and transport firearms across state lines.

The bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, and for the interstate transportation of firearms providing certain conditions are met. Guns transported across state lines will have to be unloaded, locked in a vehicle or kept in the trunk.

Another pro-gun provision of the bill will allow military members to buy guns in the states where they’re stationed.

Grassley said the bill was the result of “the combined efforts of many members of the Senate,” and called it “a sensible alternative” to Democratic gun control reform efforts that “addresses problems we’ve seen without burdening law abiding citizens.”